Are you a functionalist or an intentionalist?

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

The reason Heydrich would qualify is he was arguably the whole reason the "Final Solution" was even implemented. The Nazis were always nasty but the "Final Solution" was initially a fringe position amongst them that even Hitler didn't support, what most Nazis wanted was either Jews becoming a second class of citizens similar to blacks in apartheid South Africa or expelling them all from the new Reich. But Heydrich insisted on the "Final Solution" as the only option and convinced Hitler to his point of view.

Also the actions he took under his SS leadership and as "Protector" of the German occupied Czech puppet state were especially nasty even by SS standards. There's a reason he was targeted for assassination by British intelligence and killed as early as 1942, the Brits realized thus guy was a whole other class of monster and had to be removed ASAP.

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows—at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example—as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."

-Adolf Hitler, 1922, 10 years before a large plurality of the German electorate would vote for his party.

Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#1922

This debate has already broken out elsewhere. Intentionalists attribute the origins of the Holocaust to a deliberate plan of Hitler for genocide early on. Functionalists argue that the origins of the Holocaust had more to do with the chaotic and competitive nature of the Nazi bureaucracy in which exterminatory officials and their policies ultimately won out.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

Here's another post from that thread with important details:

The reason Heydrich would qualify is he was arguably the whole reason the "Final Solution" was even implemented. The Nazis were always nasty but the "Final Solution" was initially a fringe position amongst them that even Hitler didn't support, what most Nazis wanted was either Jews becoming a second class of citizens similar to blacks in apartheid South Africa or expelling them all from the new Reich. But Heydrich insisted on the "Final Solution" as the only option and convinced Hitler to his point of view.

Also the actions he took under his SS leadership and as "Protector" of the German occupied Czech puppet state were especially nasty even by SS standards. There's a reason he was targeted for assassination by British intelligence and killed as early as 1942, the Brits realized thus guy was a whole other class of monster and had to be removed ASAP.

A lot of this is not true actually. There is evidence Hitler wanted to kill all Jews as early as the 1920's (Gemlich letter, Hitler's 1922 interview with Joseph Heil, etc.).

However, Hitler was an extremely pragmatic man. His pragmatism led him to realize early on in his reign that killing Jews would not be feasible, so he first opted towards extreme discrimination and expulsions. However, many countries, including the US, refused to take in Jewish refugees.

However, once it became clear that killing Jews would be feasible, especially under the "fog of war" caused by WWII, Hitler forbade fleeing and sought to kill them all. At this point, he actually became staunchly opposed to Jewish emigration out of the Third Reich because "they could still harm Germany from other countries." He especially opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine because he believed it could serve as a haven for "World Jewry" to carry out its nefarious plans.

The idea that Heydrich was the one who came up with the Final Solution is utterly ridiculous. In fact, Heydrich was one of the least personally anti-Semitic people in Hitler's inner circle. He had many good relationships with Jews and harbored no serious ill feelings towards them. He wasn't even a diehard Nazi and joined the party largely for career advancement. I think you are confusing Heydrich with Himmler. Himmler played a far, far, far bigger role in coming up with the Final Solution and its not even close.

However, it is true that Heydrich is considered to be particularly evil compared to other Nazis, to the point where even Hitler called him "the man with an Iron heart." However, this is largely because he wasn't a true believer in Nazism like the other top Nazis were. Guys like Hitler truly believed that Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated. In contrast, guys like Heydrich thought that Hitler's ideas about Jews were nonsense. However, he still enthusiastically carried out the Final Solution in the most vile, vicious manner possible because he wanted to rise within the ranks of the Nazi Party and impress the Fuhrer. The fact that Heydrich did what he did despite not being a true believer in Nazism is what makes him particularly evil.  

[Beet]

Here's another quote from Hitler from the same Josef Hell interview from 1922:

"It is manifestly clear and has been proven in practice and by the facts of all revolutions that a struggle for ideals, for improvements of any kind whatsoever, absolutely must be supplemented with a struggle against some social class or caste.

    My object is to create first-rate revolutionary upheavals, regardless of what methods and means I have to use in the process. Earlier revolutions were directed either against the peasants, or the nobility and the clergy, or against dynasties and their network of vassals, but in no case has revolution succeeded without the presence of a lightning rod that could conduct and channel the odium of the general masses.

    With this very thing in mind I scanned the revolutionary events of history and put the question to myself against which racial element in Germany can I unleash my propaganda of hate with the greatest prospects of success? I had to find the right kind of victim, and especially one against whom the struggle would make sense, materially speaking. I can assure you that I examined every possible and thinkable solution to this problem, and, weighing every imaginable factor, I came to the conclusion that a campaign against the Jews would be as popular as it would be successful."

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2008/04/why_hitler_chos.html

According to globalsecurity, the "Intentionalist" school of thought is now a minority perspective, though not without adherents...The "Intentionalist" and "Functionalist" dichotomy is overly simplictic, and neither excludes the other. The "Intentionalists" are probably correct that Hitler appears from the outset to have sought the physical extirpation of the Jews, though without having clearly thought out how this might best be accomplished. The "Functionalists" are probably correct that the German state apparatus only arrived at the final solution once a variety of other schemes had been found wanting.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ww2/holocaust.htm

[Alcibiades]

I certainly lean functionalist, but not to the extreme degree that the likes of Broszat did. Ian Kershaw is probably the historian whose interpretation I agree with the most. At any rate, moderate functionalism probably leads to a richer analytical framework than intentionalism.

[Vosem]

I'm not sure that these perspectives are contradictory. I guess lean intentionalist inasmuch as it was always Hitler's intention to eventually enact the genocide if he became dictator, but functionalism ("working towards the Führer") seems like it describes how the Nazi state actually operated in practice.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm not sure that these perspectives are contradictory. I guess lean intentionalist inasmuch as it was always Hitler's intention to eventually enact the genocide if he became dictator, but functionalism ("working towards the Führer") seems like it describes how the Nazi state actually operated in practice.

I was actually taught "working towards the Führer" as a sort of fusion theory (and still agree with it). Hitler had clear genocidal intent from very early on but the form that that genocide took was the result of cumulative radicalization within the Nazi regime. This is that rare post of yours that I agree with entirely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with Vosem and Nathan. Hitler wanted the Jews gone by any means and he was fine with genocide as early as the 1920s. At the same time the practicality of killing that many itself would discourage an extermination in favor of other options, among "other figures", until the "war" pushed the rest of the regime in Hitler's direction.

*It should be clarified that the war as processed through the warped Nazi view of the world as having been caused by the Jewish people to destroy the Germans. I believe there is a speech where Hitler threatened the extermination of the Jews if "they caused another war".

This is one aspect in which I agree with the Youtuber TiK as well, leaving aside his biased framing in other regards. Hitler very much wanted a "pure Germanic" community, and the only way he thought he could achieve that was through the elimination of the Jews from society.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

I'm an intentionalist. The Nazi party and its predecessors was rabidly anti-Semitic and all it took was someone as wicked as Hitler to orchestrate this. I believe it was intention ever since he entered into leadership.